Posted on 04/03/2016 2:28:33 PM PDT by drewh
As president, Donald Trump would sell off $16 trillion worth of U.S. government assets in order to fulfill his pledge to eliminate the national debt in eight years, senior adviser with the campaign Barry Bennett said.
"The United States government owns more real estate than anybody else, more land than anybody else, more energy than anybody else," Bennett told Chris Jansing Sunday on MSNBC. "We can get rid of government buildings we're not using, we can extract the energy from government lands, we can do all kinds of things to extract value from the assets that we hold."
In a wide-ranging interview with The Washington Post, Trump said he would get rid of the $19 trillion national debt "over a period of eight years." The article noted that most economists would consider Trump's proposal impossible, as it could require slashing the annual federal budget by more than half.
However, when pressed on whether the United States could sell off $16 trillion worth of assets, Bennett responded affirmatively on Sunday.
"Oh, my goodness," he said. "Do you know how much land we have? You know how much oil is off shore? And in government lands? Easily."
The federal government's assets totaled $3.2 trillion as of September 2015, according to the U.S. Government Accountability Office. However, that does not include include stewardship assets or natural resources.
(Excerpt) Read more at nbcnews.com ...
That's great. I agree with you. I hope you were equally as frustrated at Trump four weeks ago when he railed against Cruz's idea ridding the federal government of so much land in the West. Because just four weeks ago - he said the federal government were better stewards of the land that the States, or private enterprises. I am VERY glad trump has switch sides and positions again, and will join in this fight. I hope he means what he says today - and not what he said just four weeks ago.
Stop pouring billions into countries who hate us
Makes my blood boil.
Only one problem, the congress will never let him fix the deficit.
Was thought of before: RON PAUL
Sorry, but this is Trump switching positions again, and finally joining WITH Senator Cruz, in this endeavor. The other way around from what you just stated. Cruz pushed this legislation THREE years ago ( see link at bottom)
And just four weeks ago Cruz stated this exact proposal again while campaigning in Oregon - and Trump himself at that time, blasted Cruz for it, and said that he felt the Federal Government was a better steward of the lands, than the states would be, or private enterprises would be.
But I am GLAD Trump has switched positions again, and joined Senator Cruz in this worthy fight. ,p. unless trump switches back to how he felt just four weeks ago. (which he is wont to do) But hopefully he will stick with this belief.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/07/10/3458798/ted-cruz-auction-off-public-lands/
I like it!
pretty snarky.
Cruz has copied Trump on so many things, I lost count. And he can’t decide if he’s for legal status, deportation, or teddy bears.
Trump’s the ONLY candidate to out together a big picture of saving the country, with each part perhaps copied by others but they don’t have the vision to put it together. I’ve never heard Cruz talk about the debt repeatedly (or at all, even). We are nearing financial collapse and Trump is the only one warning us.
Selling off Federal assets to private local American ownership, transferring Federal assets to the respective states (done decades ago in the East) are certainly worthwhile, but needs to be done at a rate that won't crater the market and a rate that can be developed efficiently. Cruz has also called for selling off Federal assets in the west, this should be a point of agreement between the two camps. God knows they need some. Both need to realize that an opposition camp large enough to annoy the heck out of us is a camp large enough to not only be useful, but essential, come November.
How exactly do you want a candidate to run? You want them to say they’ll accomplish nothing because of having to deal with Congress? how would you know which ones have your same goals then?
You wouldn’t have liked Reagan either.
Reagan made deals with an adversarial congress. Trump will do the same.
I like the sounds of that just on it’s face. ping for later reading.
If you’re going to sell land, make sure EPA, BLM and others don’t have any control of it.
Really...can you point to an article?
and let’s be clear we’re not talking about Federal government giving land to State government
that’s just from one government to another government and that also generates no revenue
we’re talking about federal government selling it to the public....
that’s fundamentally different than federal government just transferring land to state governments and still keeping it locked up
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics-jan-june13-cruz_01-07/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eS2N0fSJvw
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/10/ted-cruz-debt-limit_n_4761927.html
You make good points, but what about if the ownership was only citizens for the first 15 years. 40 acres and a mule indeed. I could make a fortune. You could make a fortune. The American Dream reignited.
Brilliant reset.
Most of the land in the United States originated as federal estate. One of the huge statesmanlike acts in the earliest days of the new Republic was the renunciation of western land claims by the original 13 states. Had they not done that, Virginia, Pennsylvania, New York, and others would still be fighting wars over who owned a particular mountaintop or swamp in what is now West Virginia or Mississippi. At a stroke, all the land between the crest of the Appalachians and the Mississippi became a federal domain.
Then came the Louisiana Purchase, the purchase of Florida from Spain, the acquisition of the Southwest and California from Mexico after the Mexican War, the Gadsden Purchase, and the purchase of Alaska. All of this was acquired by the federal government and was originally federal estate.
The exceptions west of the Appalachians were Texas and Hawaii, both of which were independent republics before entering the Union.
Until the late 19th century, the federal government was committed to divestiture. In fact, land sales and tariffs were the major sources of federal revenue in the early days. As the frontier moved into the desert and mountain west, however, the land because unsuitable for yeoman agriculture. The principal value was ranching, timber, and mining. Congress balked at transferring huge tracts to private corporate interests at fire sale rates. The decision was made to retain federal ownership but to lease much of the acreage via the BLM and the Forest Service. We are left with the huge blocks of federally owned land in the west, and a rogue environmental movement that is working overtime to shift management objectives away from multiple use and economic exploitation to park and wilderness type management, which is hamstringing traditional western industries. That's what the fuss is about.
I agree that the feds own too much land in the west and that big chunks of BLM land, and perhaps some Forest Service land as well (NOT national parks, wilderness areas, national monuments, etc.), should be transferred to the states or privatized. (I would use the proceeds to enhance park holdings in the east, where the feds own very little land and where high population densities create a need for expanded park resources.) The politics of this are intricate. But we need to recognize that the feds have always owned most of this land. The amount of private land that the feds have acquired over the past 50 years is relatively small compared to the vast tracts that the feds have always controlled.
Oh stop with the Cruz advertisements. Fewer and fewer are buying into that fraud. This should be really obvious to most by now.
This is just one article where Trump is railing against Cruz"s idea of selling federal lands to the States. And in this interview one of his big concerns is the exact reason that the States might SELL the lands to private enterprises
http://politistick.com/the-truth-about-trumps-stance-on-the-federal-land-grab-video/
Sorry, this used to be an honest opinion site. I was just stating mine, with no tabloid journalism, or untruths. Just stating as many provable facts as possible, supporting my candidate of choice. You can just skip my comments in the future. That's what I do with the tabloid innuendo stuff. but I still love to read any new facts about all the candidates.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.